Mental toughness (MT) is an umbrella term that entails positive psychological resources, which are crucial across a wide range of achievement contexts and in the domain of mental health. We systematically review empirical studies that explored the associations between the concept of MT and individual differences in learning, educational and work performance, psychological well-being, personality, and other psychological attributes. Studies that explored the genetic and environmental contributions to individual differences in MT are also reviewed. The findings suggest that MT is associated with various positive psychological traits, more efficient coping strategies and positive outcomes in education and mental health. Approximately 50% of the variation in MT can be accounted for by genetic factors. Furthermore, the associations between MT and psychological traits can be explained mainly by either common genetic or non-shared environmental factors. Taken together, our findings suggest a ‘mental toughness advantage’ with possible implications for developing interventions to facilitate achievement in a variety of settings.

Mental toughness (MT) has been related to high performance in competitive situations. The current studies tested whether individual differences in MT were associated with success in two achievement domains: higher education and work. Academic performance and attendance were assessed over three years in a British university sample. MT was associated with higher average academic grades (Study 1). Individual differences in MT predicted individuals' income, controlling for age and gender (Study 2). The results suggest that MT entails positive psychological resources that are important for academic and career success. Future research aiming at exploring the factors that contribute to variation in MT and the mechanisms that underlie the association between MT and achievement may have significant implications for predicting and optimizing performance in various domains.

No abstract

People often find truth and meaning in claims that have no regard for truth or empirical evidence. We propose that one reason is that people value connecting and fitting in with others, motivating them to seek the common ground of communication and generate explanations for how claims might make sense. This increases the likelihood that people experience empty claims as truthful, meaningful, or even profound. Seven studies (N . 16,000 from the United States and China) support our prediction. People who score higher in collectivism (valuing connection and fitting in) are more likely to find fake news meaningful and believe in pseudoscience (Studies 1 to 3). China-U.S. cross-national comparisons show parallel effects. Relative to people from the United States, Chinese participants are more likely to see meaning in randomly generated vague claims (Study 4). People higher in collectivism are more likely to engage in meaning-making, generating explanations when faced with an empty claim, and having done so, are more likely to find meaning (Study 5). People who momentarily experience themselves as more collectivistic are more likely to see empty claims as meaningful (Study 6). People higher in collectivism are more likely to engage in meaning-making unless there is no common ground to seek (Study 7). We interpret our results as suggesting that conditions that trigger collectivism create fertile territory for the spread of empty claims, including fake news and misinformation.